Jailhouse Lawyer's Handbook - Sentencing and Justice Reform ...

Courts generally agree that the test for serious medical
need is highly individual. Smith v. Carpenter, 316 F.3d
178 (2d Cir. 2003). A condition may not be a serious
medical need in one situation but could be a serious
medical need in another. Furthermore, a prisoner may
suffer from a serious underlying medical condition, but
not have a serious medical need for Eighth Amendment
purposes:
“it's the particular risk of harm faced by a prisoner
due to the challenged deprivation of care, rather
than the severity of the prisoner's underlying
medical condition, considered in the abstract, that
is relevant for Eighth Amendment purposes.” Id.
at 186; Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 702-
703 (2d Cir. 1998).
In considering whether you have a serious medical
need, the court will consider several factors,
including:
(1) Whether a reasonable doctor or patient
would consider the need worthy of comment
or treatment,
(2) Whether the condition significantly affects
daily activities, and
(3) Whether you have chronic and serious pain.
For more on these factors, one good case to read is
Brock v. Wright, 315 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2003).
It is important that you keep detailed records of your
condition and inform your prison medical staff of
exactly how you are suffering.
Mental health concerns can qualify as serious medical
needs. For example, several courts have held that a risk
of suicide is a serious medical need for the purposes of
the Eighth Amendment. Estate of Cole by Pardue v.
Fromm, 94 F.3d 254 (7 th Cir. 1996); Gregoire v. Class,
236 F.3d 413 (8 th Cir. 2000).
(b) Deliberate Indifference
The standard for “deliberate indifference” in medical
care cases is the same two-part standard used in cases
challenging conditions of confinement in prison,
explained in Part 8 of this chapter. To prove deliberate
indifference, you must show that (1) prison officials
knew about your serious medical need and (2) failed to
respond reasonably to it. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104.
Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1369 (7th Cir.
1997). This means that you cannot bring an Eighth
Amendment challenge to medical care just because it
was negligent (just because a doctor should have
known about your medical need) or because you
disagree with the type of treatment a doctor gave you.
You must bring these sorts of claims through other
means, such as state medical malpractice laws.
To increase your chances of receiving proper care and
succeeding in a constitutional challenge to your
medical care, you should keep careful records of your
condition and your efforts to notify prison officials.
You should take advantage of sick call procedures at
your prison and report your condition even if you do
not think officials will help you. Although courts will
not find deliberate indifference just because a prison
“should have known” that you had a serious medical
need, they will assume that prison officials knew about
your condition when it was very obvious. Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842 (1995).
Courts most often find deliberate indifference when:
a prison doctor fails to respond appropriately or
does not respond at all to your serious medical
needs
prison guards or other non-medical officials
intentionally deny or delay your access to
treatment,
or when these same non-medical officials interfere
with the treatment that your doctor has ordered.
Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-105; Meloy v. Bachmeier,
302 F.3d 845, 849 (8 th Cir. 2002).
Unfortunately, courts do not usually require prison
medical staff to give you the best possible care. For
example, courts have not found a violation when prison
medical staff sent a patient who was severely beaten by
another patient to a doctor and then followed that
doctor’s orders despite the prisoner’s continued
complaints, even though the prisoner’s condition was
more serious than the doctor had recognized. Perkins v.
Lawson, 312 F.3d 872 (7 th Cir. 2002). Another court
found that there could not have been deliberate
indifference in a case where a patient received thirteen
medical examinations in one year, even though he
claimed that a muscular condition in his back did not
improve. Jones v. Norris, 310 F.3d 610 (8 th Cir. 2002).
JAILHOUSE LAWYERS HANDBOOK – CHAPTER TWO
26